|
Sheriff of Nottingham was the hit of the holiday season for my friends and family. I'm pretty sure that I sold two or three copies of that game once it is back to print. The only issue we have is that the discard piles get filled completely with illegal goods within the first round or so. This means that the whole draw from the discard thing becomes pointless quickly. Should our group be trying to smuggle in more legal goods?
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
I plan on playing Blood Bowl team manager on superbowl Sunday while listening to jock jams and eating nachos.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:All right board game thread, what are some good, and if possible inexpensive and easy to transport 2 player board games? Summoner wars. The starter box works well, then you can get more armies as needed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Played a weird game today... Master of Economy. The game itself is about personally making money while running a company. You win based on how much money you personally have in the end, not how much your company has. You can buy stocks for yourself, buy stocks for your company, manipulate the market, build a resource engine, embezzle from your company, buy out the other players' companies and take over for them, tank your company for your own gain, etc. There are lots of moving parts and the game is extremely dense and dry. It is very good for what it is: a intense and dense economy game. That isn't the weird part though... The game had four corporations, each run by a player. Mine was 'red socks', a corporation that apparently makes porn. Its logo is a pair of sexy lady legs. Another player was 'green leaves', a pot selling company whose logo is a pot leaf. Another was 'blue eyes', which apparently a corporation that deals in escorts. I don't know what 'yellow submarine' does but it is most likely unsavory. None of these things has anything to do with the game play at all. The resources are coal, ore, electricity, and steel. The only thing you can build with them are boats to sell. Why a porn company is buying ore, building factories and selling boats is beyond me. Nutty as all hell. As a bonus bit of nuttiness, check out this quote from their other game, Show Business. This is copied from the back of master of economy's rulebook. quote:You act as manager of music group playing one of 5 major music styles: rock, pop, black (e.g. rap, soul, R&B), jazz, club (electronic dance music) and compete with other managers to gain fame and money for you and your musicians. One of those things is not like the others!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Jazz isn't black? When I first read it, my eye skipped the parentheses. I read 'black' as perhaps black metal or goth, which would have made the game go from WTF to 'gotta play now'.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Summoner Wars This is one of my favorite two player games. There is a lot of content out for it, so if you enjoy it and want more, I highly recommend the recent Summoner wars alliances. It just became available on CoolStuff. Even without the eight new armies, the sturdy box, dividers, and fabric playmat are excellent upgrades to your little box and paper mat. You could also play 3-4 players with the two mats. The eight new armies are mashups of the existing sixteen factions. For instance, the Fallen Phoenix faction is a mix between the Phoenix elves you are familiar with and the fallen kingdom, who like sacrifice and other things. After you play through the armies in the box, you'll have a decent idea about all the factions strengths and weaknesses so you can get whatever you want from there. Note that you might want to take my opinion with a grain of salt because I was a playtester on Alliances. I think it is safe to say that if you like summoner wars and want more, it is the best next step.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:There are 3 different kinds of playmats available for Summoner Wars. I guess the Alliances one is a cloth playmat, or whatever "premium" means. I dunno, I don't have it yet. The one in the Master Set is two halves of the board, made with cardboard. It's pretty good. The last one is a paper playmat in the "starter" sets with 2 factions (Phoenix Elves vs. Tundra Orcs, for example). It is crap. To add to this, the alliance playmat is essentially two thick rubbery mats that you slide together. It is essentially two big mouse pads that, when placed next to each other, create a summoner wars board. It reminds me of what people win at Netrunner tournaments. It is awesome. My only complaint is that it smells like rubber so I am planning on airing it out. Meanwhile the old master set board is a standard fold up board. Nothing special but not awful, like the paper ones. If you like summoner wars and you want a better board and a storage solution, Alliances is exactly what you want. The eight armies are very good too (in my opinion they are amoung the most interesting armies released) but the components are great.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Next to Space Alert, Dungeon Petz is my second favorite Vlaada.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Anyone who has been playtesting a Netrunner app needs to wait for April 2nd to spill the beans. Way too many shenanigans today. I don't believe anything anyone says for the next 24 hours.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:Plaid Hat are following up Dead of Winter with an absurdly awful looking game: http://www.plaidhatgames.com/games/ashes I playtested it but couldn't get past more than four games or so. I really didn't care for it at all and had to tell the designer I couldn't continue. We'll see how it goes for them. Maybe I'm wrong and people will like it. I personally didn't and wonder what they are thinking. That being said, it is a pretty game artwise. Whoever they hired for the art of dead of winter and ashes is pretty good. I really don't know why they thought creating a wizard fighting card game when they already have a drat good wizard fighting card game and there are so many other wizard fighting card games out there, including the mother of all Wizard fighting games that keeps entire stores afloat. Just making an innovative theme would help. I really like plaid hat, and their podcast is an informative look at the industry, but boy does this seems like a step backwards. I think they are wanting to jump on the LCG bandwagon, but they already have summoner wars, which has been distributed under pretty much the same model for years. I also think that even if it is successful, the rules are going to make playtesting really hard, and their design space will be very limited. There are good ideas in there. It isn't all bad. But it is going to have an uphill battle. That being said, their next game is Spector Ops, which looks pretty good. I'll post my impressions once I have a game or two in.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Scyther posted:Well, it's Isaac Vega, who seems to have his hands in all of Plaid Hat's worst games (Dead of Winter, City of Remnants), so that explains a lot. You forgot Bioshock Infinite... He really has a knack for smashing a bunch of mechanics from other games into one convoluted mess. Dead of Winter is his only successful game, but only because it is a hidden traitor zombie game. 'Battlestar Galactica with zombies' is a money printing machine, even if the game is bad. I really think Plaid hat needs to say a loving heart felt goodbye to Isaac and start looking for other talent.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Ashes rant Yep. I agree with you on all fronts. I hate to bash a product that has my name in the rulebook, but it isn't a good game. I am still a playtester for them, but this taught me to agree to projects carefully. I almost wrote up a long document criticizing this mess, but what would be the point? By then the game was years in development and already too far gone. Plaid hat needs to play to their strengths and backgrounds. Summoner wars is good because they all have intimate experience with Heroscape. None of them have experience with card games, and it shows in Ashes. Still, it is sad that they are crossing my reputation line to the bad side. I have hope about Spector Ops, mostly because it was licensed from an outside designer and seems good from the watch it played. Seafall I want to be good very badly, mostly because I like the idea of Risk legacy but hate risk. I always want more summoner wars. But otherwise, anything that they release is going to be met with instant skepticism... Especially if Vega is involved.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
djfooboo posted:RIP Summoner wars isn't without its flaws. Especially with early sets, many times games can boil down to Summoner vs summoner in that there is no real reason to push him forward. Many early events are very swingy and lead to singular strategies. Some of the art is god awful. In deck building, there are some over powered units that need errata otherwise there is no reason to not include as many as possible in every deck. There are more. I think the designers looked at Heroscape, said 'this sucks, but what can I do to make it better?' They then founded their company on a good game that, while not great, is undeniably better than Heroscape. I still whole heartedly recommend Summoner wars to anyone looking for a light cheap two player game with a lot of content. However upon SWs success, they came out with a bunch of garbage that ranges from tolerable under the right conditions (mice and mystics, city of remnants) to complete trash (dead of winter, bioshock, Ashes). Plaid hat has sullied any reputation regarding designing games internally. They are now publishing games from external designers like Spector Ops and Seafall, so we'll see how that goes. If they cannot even do that right, then I fear that there is no hope. They'll slide into cryptozoic levels of distrust. I do worry about Plaid hat making the games worse by forcing their own ideas on the final product. There appears to be some evidence of this in Spector Ops, but perhaps I am blowing a minor rules snafu out of proportion. That being said, it still looks like something I would like to play and hope that I don't regret my impulse preorder. To be honest, I am pretty much there with FFG as well. Other than Eric Lang, I don't think they can design something that isn't a fiddly mess. I still like the Lord of the Rings lcg, but no one can argue that it is a tightly designed game. The laziness of Netrunner made me never want to play it again, though I might jump back into it once I cool off. At least the mediocre star wars games have pretty miniatures.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:Is it even really that far gone? I am up to date on Netrunner, warhammer conquest, lord of the Rings, Mage wars, and summoner wars. I even have a whole bunch of dice masters stuff. For some reason, these kinds of games call to me. This game does very little better than any of the aforementioned games, and does so much more worse. In my opinion, it plays even worse than the rulebook reads. It was a hard decision to give Netrunner an extended break, but I don't feel bad passing this up. It isn't all bad. I like that there is more reason to include multiples of cards outside of consistency. I like the art in general, though they could have chosen to make some of it more interesting and dynamic... Of the many faults of plaid hat, they can certainly make an attractive game. Hell, DoW may not be a good game, but it is pretty and distinctive. But regarding Ashes, the dice can lead to interesting decisions but dice masters does it better. That is about it off the top of my head. Every other 'wizards fighting' does the theme better. Every card game I collect has clearer rules and wording, and that is saying something when you remember that I collect Mage wars. Every other game seems to have put some thought into 'playtest-ability' by limiting deck building to open design space and lower the combinations to test. There are so many other card games that are similar but better, and I don't think they considered any of them. I could go on, but you all get the idea. Again, I hate trashing this game because my name is in the rulebook and I would like to playtest again, but god drat it is not for me. This is going to be the biggest challenge Rodney of 'Watch it played' ever faced.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Aston posted:
While this is obviously a joke card, there are cards that are borderline just as convoluted in Netrunner. I went around the Internet collecting different interpretations of the same card (IT department) and stopped at around a dozen. Then the FAQ came out, giving me a totally different interpretation. So I threw my hands in the air and vowed to spend my hard earned dollars elsewhere. If the wording/rules are vague and open to so much misinterpretation, why should I think the playtesters played it the way it was meant to be played. It might as well not been playtested at all. Ashes is similar but better than Netrunner in this regard. I think lots of people were playing wrong to begin with, but it was cleared up eventually. Still, even though I was a playtester, I think the poor rules led to poor playtesting. I didn't have the complete picture though so I could be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Netrunner would be a flop if it had a dueling wizards theme. Hell, Netrunner would be a flop if it didn't have such an awesome theme. Replace the Corp with a castle and the runner with invaders, and it would be already forgotten. I see the garbage Netrunner players are putting up with and wonder why they are doing that to themselves. Then I get blinded by the theme and want to play Netrunner. Ashes would have an uphill battle if it were renamed, rethemed, the wording was changed, the deck building was retooled, and the rules streamlined.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
sonatinas posted:It's not that bad. I dunno. It's pretty bad. At this point, I cannot recommend Netrunner to anyone who doesn't want to read faqs, forums and tweets for hours. Try explaining why sharpshooter doesn't work like Fairie to a new player, or why Kati Jones and shell Corporation work the same despite different wordings. There are reasons for these things and dozens of other weird interactions and wordings, but they are a pain in the rear end. Only people who invested hundreds of dollars into the game give a poo poo. StashAugustine posted:What's the problem people have with Netrunner, just the very questionable wording of the cards and rules? I don't think the meta is too bad, but it certainly is hard to be creative and competitive. There are strong archetypes and straying from those is asking to lose. Combine this with an abundance of silver bullets, and you can end up playing the most elaborate game of rock paper scissors. I am also convinced that there is little to no playtesting. It is arguable whether there are overpowered cards/identities, but I seriously doubt everyone played the IT department the same way and didn't have any objections or confusion to its wording.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Uhm.... Kati and Shell Corp are worded exactly the same (except for the card name). There are only a few "decisions" or interactions that are actually confusing, and they almost never come up in casual play. It's not all that bad. The meta is getting bad - and your later point about silver bullets is dead on. This is pedantic, and feel free to make fun of me, but the removal of 'from the bank' is troublesome. If Kati didn't have 'from the bank' it would be assumed and I wouldn't have an issue. But they have different wordings, implying different meanings. Dumb as poo poo. Ctrl+c, ctrl+v would have been great but they changed it for some reason. But you are right, in casual play, everyone is nice and forgiving. But it is quickly getting worse. Edit: You are right. Any further whining on my part will be in the Netrunner thread.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Played Spector Ops for the first time last night. We played two 2-player games, switching off who was the agent. The first game took a little over an hour, and the second took 45 minutes. Plaid hat certainly did themselves a favor by publishing a third party game. The only weird unnecessary and unclear rules are easily ignored. For instance, the game says that the agent should put his last seen token and his minature on the place he was last seen. This is a relatively new addition to the rules because PHG didn't think the agents miniatures got used enough. This is a valid point, the agents' miniatures wouldn't be used much anyway, but it makes that part twice as confusing as it needs to be. Eventually we just stopped doing that and it didn't affect anything. I do think that exposing the agent sooner is a good effect that came out of this weird rule change. The hunters would have gone most of both games not knowing what agent they are facing, which is important information to know. Now they'll know within the first few turns if they are playing well. The game is walking a fine line between 'giving too much information so that the game is boring' and 'too little information that the agent's actions feel random.' So far, it is walking this line very well. The hunters have plenty of tools to determine where the agent is, in general. The agent has equipment whose function is to get them out of a tight spot. These cards may seem too random over time, but in our games they were used only when the agent would have been in serious trouble if the equipment wasn't used. I don't see the problem with this. Some of the equipment is there to give the agents false information, like the holo decoy or the smoke bomb. This can lead to frustrating play, but liberal use of the motion detector counters this. An final point of concern is that the hunter players might have some automatic, boring turns. For instance, it is very smart to post a hunter on street corners to watch for the agent crossing. Otherwise, the agent may cross secretly and you are stuck lookin in a corner they are no longer in. So the hunter just sits there and pings motion detector every once in a while. The first turn can be automatic as well. The hunters always have the same information the first round, so there is an optimal first turn for them. I imagine it is something like driving up to a corner and having a single hunter hop out, with the other left to ping the motion detector the next turn. Overall, I want to get a few more games in before I recommend it but I am feeling positive. This game certainly has the most streamlined rules of any of plaid hat's other games. There are no unnecessary rules, other than the aforementioned 'last seen token' rule. Both games, the agent won but both hunter players know that they made some mistakes that affected the outcome. It was tense most of the time and, for the most part, the hunters were right on the tail of the agent. And if there is one thing plaid hat can do right lately, it is make a pretty game. The board is very pretty and functional, with glossy slightly raised numbers giving information under most lighting conditions but not getting in the way. The miniatures are nice as well. It was very enjoyable, and I am looking forward to playing it again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:If these issues are real we can just call it Spectator Ops Bam! To elaborate on this concern a little more, in theory it will be a bigger issue with three players than any other player count. In 2-player games, the hunter player is controlling another dude to weave between crates and do things, so they aren't bored. In four or five player games, I feel like the patrol shift can be passed around more easily, and the extra eyes will make the agent slipping away less likely. But in three player games, one player might be assigned corner duty and not have much to do. I haven't played a three player game yet, so this is all theoretical. Another possible issue is that the agent might get a bigger advantage because he can hear tabletalk between the agents, but anything they say, he should be considering anyway. In 2-player games, the hunter keeps his plans to himself. Maybe this is countered by the 'more brainpower' of three players verses two, so less mistakes? Seems like a sketchy counter, but it's possible. I'll see if this comes up when I play with more players over the next few weeks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Sometimes you just want to be Batman. While the jury is still out on it, Spector Ops is like this in theory. Replace 'completing objectives' with 'finding clues' and you are are a ninja detective with gadgets on your utility belt sneaking around the docks. A henchman sees you? Throw the smoke bomb on the ground and sneak back into the shadows. Plus the henchman don't die, but only get stunned. So you are following Batman's 'No killing' rule.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:https://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/190164/direct-links-artscowcowcow-draw-bag-designes This would actually be very nice for Castles of burgundy. Keeping those drat tiles sorted is a pain.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Texibus posted:How come you can't have a good time with it? You are re-opening a massive can of worms. Many people, especially people on these forums, cannot see past bad mechanical problems in a game, no matter how much theme is there. For them, it is simply lipstick on a pig. DoW has some pretty lipstick, but it doesn't keep it from being a big fat poopy hog.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
I almost ragequit a three hour game of Zombies!!! but I didn't because I'm a trooper. By hour two, I had moved two blocks but was about to win. Then someone played the 'go back to start' card completely undoing the previous two hours and causing the game to last an additional hour. And I didn't ragequit. I felt very zen.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Texibus posted:TL;DR A loooong cat and mouse game that comes up short in the catching but does ok in the hiding, fun for a few plays but nothing that has any staying power. While I agree with you on much of your review, after 5 games, I can say that I've never seen it go longer than our 1.5 hour first game. The agent turn should be no longer than 1 min, and the hunters should be no longer than a 1 min a piece. Turns are mostly just moving and/or a special action, so most of our turns are 30 seconds or so. There might be some time for thinking/discussion, but most of the time it boils down to short collaboration like, 'I know he is in this area so I'll watch the corner while you sniff him out'. I consider this a quick game. I give it a A-. Rolling to hurt sucks but at least it is scalable to the main draw of the game: the deduction aspect. I don't know what the alternative would be. Honestly, with people who know the game, it lasts 45 mins or so. Usually it is a pretty good 45 minutes but I don't think I'll want to play it past ten plays. They would be a good ten plays, but by then everything will get repetitive. I'd recommend it as an 'upgrade from battleship' for people new to the hobby.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Texibus posted:How many people were you playing with? I could see this being quicker if you had someone staying in the car constantly doing motion detection. 2,3, and 4, but mostly 3. One dude (usually the gunner or puppet) would post up on the corner and not do much, but no one complained. Usually the player is participating in the conversation, and he doesn't need to be posted there for more than a turn or two until the agent is forced to make a move. You don't need to constantly motion detect, but doing it every few turns to make sure the agent is where you expect is important.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Glass half full: Warhammer nerds will look for superior alternatives, find Warhammer Diskwars, and sell so many copies that FFG will print more expansions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
To be fair, Plaid hat also published Spector Ops, which is decent. I have played it quite a bit, and while it has gotten stale for me, I wouldn't label it as lovely as DoW. It still has roll to hit, but it isn't that bad overall. They need to publish more games from outside designers instead of riding the Isaac Vega 'same designer as DoW' train.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Also, the 'kill your own guys' strategy is only dominant in the first 8 factions or so (out of 40). It sucks thematically in some cases, but it is much less common in the later, more interesting factions. Summoner wars has its flaws, but I would still rank it one of the top cheap rules-light 2player 'miniature' games. Also, you know what is worse than 'roll to hit'? loving 'roll to defend'. It is my biggest issue with Xwing. Nothing is more deflating than master maneuvering your ships for a great shot, firing off your missiles, and rolling great, only to have your opponent roll great too and nothing happens. At least with summoner wars, most dice have a 2/3 chance of hitting, with very little stopping it. The probability management is much less mathy if you don't obfuscate the process with defense dice.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Azran posted:I know people who love the defense dice roll (which at least is simultaneous) if only because it makes the player feel like he/she is involved in the resolution and not just at the mercy of luck. More dice makes the player more involved and reduces luck? Those people are crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
I agree with the mega post on roll to hit. The reason I am fine with Spector Ops' roll to hit mechanic is that your chances of a hit improve with how close you are to the spy. Thus, the chances improve with good play on the hunters part. If the dice hate you, the game can be ruined unjustly. But ultimately how many times you roll and the chance of success is determined by how effectively you utilize the tools at your disposal, how many mistakes the spy makes, how predictable the spy is, and all the good stuff in the game. To a similar extent, Summoner wars' roll to hit mechanics are fine. Depending on the faction, you'll have all sorts of ways to get more dice, more attacks, improve your attack probability, and limit your opponent's attacks. All of this depends on a combination of hand management, resource management, resource denial, positioning, planning, and other good stuff. Furthermore, the probability of hitting is always pretty good and predictable, so getting completely screwed over by a bad roll is relatively unlikely compared to other games, in my opinion. It'll happen, but you can form a plan B. And if you absolutely hate rolling, you can build a precise Phoenix elves army and not make a single roll.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Here is my list of the top of my head: -The game of thrones lcg (I'm in the tournament so my copy is secure but I think other copies will go fast) - Legendary Encounters predator version. - Codenames - Broom Service - English version of Mysterium - Warhammer conquest Tyranids expansion - Whatever LotR lcg things are there
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:Dark Moon Oh no. It sounds like I am going to have to increase my GenCon budget... I liked BSG, but the length and fiddliness made get rid of it. This sounds right up my alley.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Edit: Dunno if you guys saw the Codenames rulebook was posted on BGG: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/119841/codenames-rulebook-english Hello GenCon purchase number three.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Looselybased posted:City of Remnants just reminded me that Plaid Hat Games puts out stuff that I almost like but are flawed in some way. I feel like CoR has a lot going for it but in the end it's just a dud. CoR has the distinction of being the best game Isaac Vega designed, which isn't saying much. It is still a very passable game, not a steaming pile of turds, but it could have been something better in more capable hands.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:How bad is Ashes supposed to be? On a range from terrible to mediocre? Terrible
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:I don't think anyone here has actually played Ashes but it's a solo Isaac Vega design and it looks insanely bad from the graphic design to the name to the rules so I'm also going to boldly predict that it's terrible. And that's before my bias against deck construction games that haven't been refined for 20 years. I was a playtester. I played enough games to get my name in the rulebook. My name being in the book is the main selling point for me. It is not a game I would otherwise buy. Even if the rules were tight and great, which they are not, the world doesn't need another deck constructing dueling wizards card game. Especially from a company that already has a pretty good deck constructing dueling wizards card game. Your predation is correct, but I highly encourage you to demo it. Maybe I'm just being a negative turd. When I see people hyped up about it, I wonder if they are excited because the dude who designed it made DoW, or if they see something that I do not.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Plaid Hat is no more. Maybe their corporate overlords can reign in some of their iffy design choices.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Rodney smiles too much. It's upsetting. Rodney is a hunky man and I told him that at Gencon. My friends and I have a inside joke about it, and I likely should have left it that way as it was awkward. We ended up talking about his videos. Great guy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Cocks Cable posted:Sorry, I only speak BSG. I dunno how else to explain the game. It's like Diet BSG made with the worst artificial sweetner possible. As someone who traded away his copy of BSG, I am going to disagree with this statement. I got rid of BSG because the game took way too long, I hate the decision process, and was fiddly as all hell. I had too many negative experiences with BSG and honestly do not understand why it is so popular. First, we had a few negative experiences where a traitor would make a crucial mistake and be discovered nearly immediately, then they had to sit there for a couple hours knowing that they hosed up and can not recover. This is an essential flaw that occurs in traitor games. With the exception of BSG's awful and unnecessary 'sympathizer' card, there is a permanent binary status of 'loyal' and 'traitor'. As a traitor, your power comes from the paranoia you sow through your actions and tablet talk. Once you are discovered, this power is permanently taken away and the game becomes another source of self loathing I'm sure none of us needs. Thoughts of 'poo poo why did I do that of course it was dumb I'm an idiot and now I'm stuck in this diminished overseer role gently caress this poo poo' will run though your mind for the rest of the game and into the night. In Dark Moon, this is less of an issue for numerous reasons. First and most obvious is the playtime. It's length of less than half of BSG makes it instantly less of a sting when the traitor fucks up. Secondly, the hopelessness of the dice mean that everyone is going to fail eventually. This makes submitting a negative dice an inevitability for all players. The 'push your luck' game, in any other context, usually makes for a lovely game. But the traitor aspect and hidden rolls turn this around, in my opinion. Tabletalk like "aw poo poo best I got is a -1 should I try for a positive? I'm going to try for a positive aw poo poo best is -2" happens both earnestly with loyal players and unhonestly with traitors. This is great! The only difference between the loyal and traitor in these circumstances is paranoia. In this case, less decisions is a good thing. It becomes less of a logic problem and more of a 'look at that dude's face that is the face of a liar'. I wholeheartedly like the dice more than the cards. This leads to the second thing I dislike about BSG: the decision system of everyone submitting a card, shuffling the cards, and seeing if anyone tanked it. I call this the 'closed' system. This is in opposition to an 'open' system like Dark Moon, where if you are going to gently caress things up, everyone can see. I hate closed systems. I am going to accent this opinion with the story of the last game of Avalon I have played. It was 7 players. Every failed mission turned the game into a fit of discussion over who logically could be the bad guy. 'This guy could be it because it failed when he was on it but it passed when this dude was on it but he could have passed it to cover his tracks but this other guy voted him on so...' Jesus Christ it was awful. This is all assuming perfectly logical players. We are not in a riddle. loving move on Holy poo poo that game sucked. I've had similar experiences with BSG which is why I bring it up here. In dark moon, for better or worse, this is less likely to happen because luck is aways a major role. She could have just pulled two lovely cards and picked the lesser of two evils, or is a traitor. He could have rolled lovely or he could be a traitor. The game boils away the mythological logic puzzle of the game and replaces it with paranoia. Catching someone in a lie and debating how many gently caress ups is too many gently caress ups becomes the key discussions. Some people who embrace the madness of trying to puzzle out the traitor will hate this. But ultimately, I think it makes for a better experience. Getting back to the point I rambled away from, this luck element makes unintentionally exposing yourself much harder, which I much prefer. The game isn't about who broke poo poo which is black and white, but who keeps on breaking poo poo on purpose which is pretty grey. One final thing that I like about the dice is the 'strong dice' and 'weak dice'. At first, new players will aways grab as many strong dice as they can until someone accuses them of being a filthy hoarder and not leaving strong dice for the rest of the loyals. Those selfish assholes. I also disagree with the strategy tips presented earlier. The ideal time to reveal as the traitor, from what I've seen, is when someone puts down a challenge you can tank and potentially win the game with. If you are in quarantine, depending on the circumstances you'll want to reveal, but if there is a fair amount of uncertainty over your guilt, you might want to wait until the next time someone fucks up and see if you can sway the popular opinion in your favor. Being undercover is aways better than being revealed, to the extent that it is almost impossible to win as the traitor with all of them revealed. The ability to choose a bad quest and tank it late in the game is so drat powerful that you want to keep that possibility open. I also disagree that the life support is the obvious worst. Limiting actions through damaged stations, depending on the game, can be crippling. We recently played a game where the infected tanked three quests in a row because the 'call a vote' station was broken. That is something that you want to avoid. You also want to be able to repair things. As far as I can tell, the 'lone wolf' station is the most useless one since no one did that. Hitting two birds with one stone with the shields is also really bad late in the game. In short, Dark Moon is for people who didn't like BSG for numerous reasons. If you really like the logic puzzle aspect of 'closed decision' systems like Avalon or BSG, you'll not like Dark Moon. I think that if you are someone who loves BSG, you keep on playing BSG because I can almost guarantee that you'll not like Dark Moon. But if you dislike BSG, give Dark Moon a look. If you hate the Avalon or BSG decision systems as much as I do, like to keep your games on the shorter side, and want to accuse your friends of trying to kill us all, you'll love Dark Moon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 14:14
|
|